Tag: religion

As an American, I’m proud that there are no religions banned in the US. Other countries do not hold the same respect for freedom as Americans. In Singapore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, and in China, Falun Gong and Xiantianism are banned.

It only takes banning one religion to destroy freedom of religion. As soon as one religion is banned, two lists are created: the banned religion list, and by default, all the religions not on the banned list in turn become allowed religions.

The act of adding just one religion to a banned list tuned over authority of choosing a religion from the individual to the state. Even those who would never consider becoming a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falun Gong had their freedom of religion taken away, because the right to a free choice was taken away.

This is not to say that America fully supports freedom. There are several lists of non-violent acts banned in America which in turn have created several lists of state approved activities. Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, and Gay Marriage are on separate banned lists in the US.

Alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine product are the state approved lists of recreation drugs. Marijuana is on the controlled substance list along with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and…i’ts a long list.

Smoking Ads are the only product banned from TV in the US; alcohol ads are allowed as long as the alcohol isn’t consumed. Everything else falls into on the approved list of advertisements created by the FCC.

Gay marriage is on the banned list along with polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Proponents of gay marriage would like to see it moved from the banned list to the allowed list which includes heterosexuals.

Rather that argue over what belongs on the banned or allowed list, we should just do away with the lists. Take away government’s power to approve what we do with our bodies, our minds, and how we choose to freely associate with one another.

The only list that’s really needed is one for government’s role. Approved activitiees for government should only include protecting citizens from violent acts; everything else should go on the list of banned government activities.

As an American, I’m proud that there are no religions banned in the US. Other countries do not hold the same respect for freedom as Americans. In Singapore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, and in China, Falun Gong and Xiantianism are banned.

It only takes banning one religion to destroy freedom of religion. As soon as one religion is banned, two lists are created: the banned religion list, and by default, all the religions not on the banned list in turn become allowed religions.

The act of adding just one religion to a banned list tuned over authority of choosing a religion from the individual to the state. Even those who would never consider becoming a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falun Gong had their freedom of religion taken away, because the right to a free choice was taken away.

This is not to say that America fully supports freedom. There are several lists of non-violent acts banned in America which in turn have created several lists of state approved activities. Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, and Gay Marriage are on separate banned lists in the US.

Alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine product are the state approved lists of recreation drugs. Marijuana is on the controlled substance list along with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and…i’ts a long list.

Smoking Ads are the only product banned from TV in the US; alcohol ads are allowed as long as the alcohol isn’t consumed. Everything else falls into on the approved list of advertisements created by the FCC.

Gay marriage is on the banned list along with polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Proponents of gay marriage would like to see it moved from the banned list to the allowed list which includes heterosexuals.

Rather that argue over what belongs on the banned or allowed list, we should just do away with the lists. Take away government’s power to approve what we do with our bodies, our minds, and how we choose to freely associate with one another.

The only list that’s really needed is one for government’s role. Approved activitiees for government should only include protecting citizens from violent acts; everything else should go on the list of banned government activities.

Today is the first day of summer, marking the summer solstice for some New Agers and neo-pagans. From comments I’ve read today about the solstice, it appears to be a good day to poke fun at those beliefs systems.

In their defense (and in the defense of belief systems in general), it needs to be pointed out that everyone operates under some degree of belief. The less popular a belief, the more likely it will be ridiculed. Popular beliefs such as love and the certainty of tomorrow are rarely ridiculed–and they are less likely to be pointed out as being belief systems.

The majority of people believe in love and consider it an important part of their daily lives–atheists love their family and friends, too. There is no empirical evidence proving the existence of love; while physiological reactions to love can be measured, there are no instruments which can detect and measure “love rays.”

It would be next to impossible to function day-to-day without some trust or confidence in areas that are unknown. Tomorrow is a belief, too. I plan for tomorrow under the belief that I will be around tomorrow. Statistically speaking, I probably will be here tomorrow, but there is no absolute certainty and it is guaranteed some of us will not be here tomorrow.

I find no reason to fear or ridicule others’ beliefs. Beliefs in and of themselves poise no danger; many beliefs like love are important and beneficial. The fear of beliefs we don’t hold exists in part because once a belief becomes popular, it has the potential to become law.

The danger doesn’t reside with the belief; the problem is the ability to force beliefs on others.

I discovered groups have more rights than individuals from my experience in the public school system. In junior high school, I was required to shower after gym class. The shower was akin to a lawn sprinkler, a pole around 6 feet high which sprayed water in 360 degrees. Prepubescent boys forced to shower together in a circle.

Memories of junior high showers

My personal modesty made showering after gym class a horrifying experience. I had no desire to be seen or see my classmates naked. When I and others challenged the need to shower, we were told it was a health issue and important for hygiene.

There was one kid that wasn’t required to shower, because Islam forbids public nudity; he was not forced to participate in this dehumanizing ritual. My own individual beliefs were not held in the same regard as his religious beliefs. Finding the showering akin to being forced to participate in a pedophile’s daydream was simply irrelevant.

I found the public school’s Christmas program personally offensive, because I felt it violated the separation of church and state. I had developed a religious respect for the Constitution at an early age, and deemed the lack of cognitive dissonance from those at school to be hypocritical and disgusting.

My individual view that being forced to participate in the Christmas program was repugnant and immoral fell on deaf ears. I was fully aware at this point that group rights were protected, so I asked my father, who is Jewish, to get me out of the Christmas program. Unfortunately, the answer was a swift “‘No,” because my mother had raised me as a Christian Scientist. My attempt to religion-shape-shift to a different protected group had failed.

My mother, being a Christian Scientist, did not have a problem with using religious exemptions; she asked for and received a religious exemption for my vaccinations. Looking back, I now see how unequal and unfair it was to parents concerned about the safety of vaccinations to have their individual beliefs ignored.

I discussed these issue with my wife, raised as a Jehovah Witness. Jehovah Witnesses didn’t have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or participate in holiday activities. It seems Jehovah Witnesses are more likely to receive an exemption from a school than atheists. Group belief systems garner more respect than the lack of beliefs.

Shapeshifter Mystique had the potential to exercise every exemption and know more freedom than any human.

With the recent healthcare law, I find myself wanting to religion-shape-shift to the Amish faith for the healthcare exemption. I know that however humiliating and morally repugnant I find being forced to participate in the healthcare program is, my own individual beliefs are yet again moot.

My point here is not an anti-religion rant, it’s a pro-individual rant. Individual beliefs are only respected when those beliefs are part of a protected group. Exceptions made for specific groups by their very nature mean there will be individuals that fall outside that group, therefore having fewer rights.

These laws and rules start with the good intention of not forcing someone to something they find morally repugnant. When exemptions are only available to certain groups, there is the unintended consequence of evaluating these groups with rights superior to individual rights.

Some criticism surrounding the controversy over the National Day of Prayer should go to religious organizations–for not complaining about the federal government trespassing on their territory.

Why would religion want endorsement from a group not especially known for moral fortitude? If gamblers or pornographers called for a day to honor religion, there would be massive objections. So where are the objections when the endorsement comes from a group so widely considered morally bankrupt as our politicians?

Religion is far more popular than Washington D.C.; religion being promoted by government is like iPad getting an endorsement from the Kindle. Does it hurt more than it helps?

By endorsing National Prayer Day, politicians hope to borrow some of religion’s popularity, thus piggyback into projecting an unearned sense of holiness–directly profiting off of God’s popularity in the polls. How does that promote either religion or morality?

Why do religious organizations tolerate government claiming any authority over prayer? If all the religions in the US declared their own National Day of Prayer, it would have a lot more meaning than a day declared by the government. The significance of the prayer itself should not be overshadowed by who claims they think it should be officially recognized as a good idea.

Most politicians support any position only so long as it serves their purpose. Even sincere politicians have different agendas than religious organizations; politicians can just as easily not support prayer, or endorse something entirely contradictory to a religious agenda if it get votes. By acknowledging government as a legitimate authority on religious matters, religious organizations put themselves at risk for the day when they find conflicts between their interests and government interests.

I think the Rev. Franklin Graham is starting to get the idea that politicians use religion for their purposes and it does not work the other way around.

There were millions of evangelical Christians that voted for Barack Obama in the last election. I don’t think they’ll be at the table next time. I think they’ve seen things from this administration that concern them, that worry them.

On this, federally declared National Day of Prayer: I pray for religious leaders to recognize that accepting a blessing from a politician is making a deal with the devil.

Some criticism surrounding the controversy over the National Day of Prayer should go to religious organizations–for not complaining about the federal government trespassing on their territory.

Why would religion want endorsement from a group not especially known for moral fortitude? If gamblers or pornographers called for a day to honor religion, there would be massive objections. So where are the objections when the endorsement comes from a group so widely considered morally bankrupt as our politicians?

Religion is far more popular than Washington D.C.; religion being promoted by government is like iPad getting an endorsement from the Kindle. Does it hurt more than it helps?

By endorsing National Prayer Day, politicians hope to borrow some of religion’s popularity, thus piggyback into projecting an unearned sense of holiness–directly profiting off of God’s popularity in the polls. How does that promote either religion or morality?

Why do religious organizations tolerate government claiming any authority over prayer? If all the religions in the US declared their own National Day of Prayer, it would have a lot more meaning than a day declared by the government. The significance of the prayer itself should not be overshadowed by who claims they think it should be officially recognized as a good idea.

Most politicians support any position only so long as it serves their purpose. Even sincere politicians have different agendas than religious organizations; politicians can just as easily not support prayer, or endorse something entirely contradictory to a religious agenda if it get votes. By acknowledging government as a legitimate authority on religious matters, religious organizations put themselves at risk for the day when they find conflicts between their interests and government interests.

I think the Rev. Franklin Graham is starting to get the idea that politicians use religion for their purposes and it does not work the other way around.

There were millions of evangelical Christians that voted for Barack Obama in the last election. I don’t think they’ll be at the table next time. I think they’ve seen things from this administration that concern them, that worry them.

On this, federally declared National Day of Prayer: I pray for religious leaders to recognize that accepting a blessing from a politician is making a deal with the devil.

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

People can form psychological dependencies with just about everything–we have workaholics, iphone-aholics, shop-aholics. For every human activity, there is someone out there who has turned it into an addition.

Associating pornography with a drug addiction is to lead people to believe its the same as a physical addiction. A closer comparison would be a gambling addiction.

Destroying families? This claim can be made against anything consuming a large amount time. Work, religion, political activism, and on and on could be said to destroy families.

For every form of speech considered offensive, there is a group considering it an abuse of free speech.

There are also well educated people that are not against pornography. Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Bad feelings are associated with the subject, so the subject must be bad. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

Interest in a sexual practice prompts seeking it out in porn, not the other way around. Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy.

Sixty-two percent of unfaithful husbands had affairs with someone at work, but I wouldn’t claim working causes affairs. Correlation does not imply causation.

The implicit suggestion is that pornography causes rape. The responsibility for rape is with the rapist alone. Saying pornography causes rape gives rapists excuses.

The process of becoming sexually aroused involves seeing your partners body as an object for sex. If sexual objectification were to cease, so would the human species. People of other gender may objectify others; the cause is a lack of empathy, not exposure to pornography.

Others could just as easily be labeled for fear of pornography: pornophobia.

If pornography addiction were included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, it would be an expression of political correctness. The DSM at one time listed homosexuality as a disorder.

Isn’t health insurance expensive enough?

Now its my turn for my theory about the role pornography plays in relationships. First off; I feel sympathy for anyone whose relationship has deteriorated due to addictive personality disorder. I don’t blame the focus of the addiction for the underlying personality disorder; I blame the disorder.

I don’t doubt there are some people who view pornography like an addict. From my own personal experiences and discussions with others, the conflicts surrounding pornography are more often a symptom of a problem in the relationship, caused by jealousy and lack of communication about sex.

Example–from the article mentioned above.

He (ex-husband) viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically.

Evidently there was conflict when it came to pornography, because the husband felt a reason to stop. The reason to stop might have been religious, or judging from the tone of the article, the husband might have been keeping his sexual interests secret from his wife.

If the reason for stopping was due to religious reasons, odds are that didn’t work out too well. The more you try not to think about something, the more you end up thinking about it. The more taboo a person finds a sexual activity that interests them, the harder they try to suppress those thoughts, the greater the urge becomes to indulge.

If the husband felt the need to keep his sexual interests secret (perhaps going to the basement to view porn), keeping secrets destroy relationships. Keeping parts of oneself hidden away from your significant other is what creates the divide that ends relationships. You can’t feel close to someone if you aren’t open and honest with them.

In a marriage, what one partner does affects the other. That is a fact. So yes, porn is a problem because it affects the person who is supposed to be the husband’s only object for affection.

While I empathize that people feel hurt when their spouse is sexually attracted to someone else, it’s unrealistic to expect your spouse to never find anyone else attractive. It is realistic to ask them to not act upon those attractions and remain monogamous.

Believing your spouse only finds physical features about you attractive is self objectification. Only considering the physical dimension of attraction leads to hurt feelings. The issue is not pornography, but feeling lack of worth outside of physical appearance.

Mutual admiration for one another goes farther in ending jealousy than physical attractiveness. In dealing with personal jealousy surrounding sex, couples can find security when they first find one another attractive as a person. If there is little beyond physical attraction, the relationship won’t last anyway.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A German couple who fled to Tennessee so they could homeschool their children have been granted political asylum by a U.S. immigration judge.

Here is another example of what life might be like living in an advanced, modern democracy. In the modern democracy of tomorrow, we won’t have to worry about the best way to raise children; there will be a department to handle those difficult decisions for parents.

The guilt parents sometimes feel because their children didn’t turn out as they had hoped will be gone. There will be no reason to take responsibility for a child’s behavior, since a state agency will have already made sure your child is well-adjusted. Parents will be mercifully spared from ungrateful children, because children will have nothing to be grateful for.

What could possibly motivate people to flee from a life lived under the worlds oldest universal health care system? Why would anyone give up all the wonderful security of Germany’s advanced modern democracy?

Its that old-fashioned, outdated notion called freedom raising its ugly head again. The sooner the United States does away with outmoded concepts of liberty, the sooner we can move on to become an advanced modern democracy– just like Germany.